Press "Enter" to skip to content

Jackson County Capitulates, Agrees to Satellite Early Voting Centers… and Legal Dodgeball!

The news from Jackson County looks like a victory for Indian voting rights. After burning up lots of taxpayer dollars fighting a voting-rights lawsuit from its own Lakota residents, Jackson County agreed Friday to use the federal money that’s been available to it all along to set up a satellite early voting center in Wanblee during the 2016 election:

The sides signed a memorandum of agreement Friday. News of the settlement emerged first from Sara Frankenstein, the lawyer representing Jackson County. Krebs confirmed the deal Monday afternoon and provided a copy of the memo.

Native American voters had sued Jackson County because they didn’t feel it was fair to travel to the courthouse in Kadoka to cast absentee ballots.

U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier ruled earlier in the case, known as Poor Bear versus Jackson County, that federal Help America Vote Act funds could be used to pay for a satellite location at Wanblee.

The agreement appears to end a difficult dispute that began during the term of former Secretary of State Jason Gant [Bob Mercer, “Jackson County Will Open Voting Site in Wanblee,” Rapid City Journal, 2015.11.17].

In a motion filed Friday in federal court to dismiss Poor Bear v. Jackson County, Jackson County says it will use $61,684 in HAVA money to staff a satellite early voting station in Wanblee for four primary and four general elections for the statutory absentee voting period (by SDCL 12-19-1.2, 46 days prior to the election). That’s $7,710.50 per election. Cutting out weekends, that’s $241 per voting day, and that covers everything—salary, mileage, and miles. Wow—$241 probably covered an hour on the phone with lawyer Sara Frankenstein. What do you think the chances are that Frankenstein and her firm Gunderson Palmer have already spent well beyond $61,684 of taxpayer dollars fighting the doomed lawsuit?

Of course, the very first condition of the agreement between Jackson County and the Secretary of State is that the Poor Bear lawsuit end now:

[T]he term of this Agreement shall commence upon the execution hereof effective the day and year above and continue until January 1, 2023, unless amended or temrinated or extended pursuant to the terms hereof. However, the Secretary of State unilaterally reserves the right to terminate this agreement should the lawsuit currently pending against Jackson County, Poor Bear et al. v. County of Jackson et al. 5:14-cv-05059, proceed to a decision on the merits [“Memorandum of Agreement Between the South Dakota Secretary of State’s Office and Jackson County, South Dakota,” 2015.11.13].

With this agreement in hand, Jackson County is moving for dismissal of Poor Bear on the grounds that the case is no longer ripe: the plaintiffs have gotten the satellite early voting station they wanted. No harm may happen until the 2024 election, and Indians can’t sue over that potential reversal until we get there. But of course, the real play here is that Jackson County is trying to avoid having another voting rights case go on the books as a precedent for Indian plaintiffs and a blow against the forces of discrimination in South Dakota.

Shantel Swedlund Sara Frankenstein
Pageant contestants, your first question: How important are equal voting rights for South Dakota’s Lakota people? Photo from

The real play here is that Jackson County want to make a deal with the state but cut the Indian plaintiffs who provoked this capitulation to voting rights out of the picture, leaving them high and dry for their legal costs.  Attorney Frankenstein may even be setting the stage an attempt to make the plaintiffs pay the county’s lawyer bills. That ploy didn’t work in Brooks v. Gant, the last big Indian voting rights case South Dakota lost in fact if not in technicality, but throwing that spaghetti wouldn’t be any long-shottier (not to mention wrong and shoddier) than trying to make stick Jackson County’s arguments against voting equality for Indians for the past year.

And what do the lawyers or Jackson County care? Win or lose, someone else—probably we taxpayers via the South Dakota Public Assurance Alliance—foots their bill.

Bonus Trivia: Sara Frankenstein succeeded Shantel Swedlund, now Krebs, as Miss South Dakota in 1998.


  1. larry kurtz 2015-11-19 10:24

    Why Wanblee hasn’t seceded from Jackson County to be annexed by Oglala Lakota County remains a mystery.

  2. jerry 2015-11-19 10:31

    The monster lady will continue to eat up taxpayer funds for this unnecessary lawsuit. It was won by the Natives the day it was admitted to the courts. What we are seeing is just another form of corruption by republicans to get at more taxpayer funds. Hell, it worked with EB-5, Gear-Up, and Mid-Central, what a perfect way to fleece the public. In this case, they want to put the blame on their windfall to the Natives by going after prejudices. There should be a way to counter sue the monster lady for a frivoulous lawsuit, you know, the ones they bitch about all the time

  3. 96Tears 2015-11-19 10:37

    Krebs v. Frankenstein, the Good (so far) Witch of Pierre v. the Wicked Witch of the West.

    Good observation, jerry. Just more doin’ bid’ness in Sanford Dakota.

    Cory, how much in lawyer welfare went to Frankenstein (her firm is Gunderson, Palmer, Nelson & Ashmore, LLP, of Rapid City)? They appear to be the only big winners in this entirely avoidable and unnecessary standoff by the bigots on the Jackson County Commission.

  4. Rorschach 2015-11-19 10:50

    Are there enough natives in Jackson County to change the name of that county? How about taking over the county commission? That would be the best way to ensure that this nonsense doesn’t happen there again. Use that new satellite voting center.

  5. bearcreekbat 2015-11-19 11:20

    Don’t you think it is rather odd to blame the lawyer for the actions of her client? Seems a bit like displaced aggression.

    Meanwhile, I cannot see how Jackson County can avoid being stung for the Plaintiff’s lawyer fees and costs since Plaintiffs actually prevailed in this settlement. Shame on the elected officials in Jackson County for pressing this issue rather than simply providing the voting site.

  6. mike from iowa 2015-11-19 11:23

    Is she on retainer to the state to lose cases so Jackley doesn’t look like a complete doofuss? Has she won any cases?

  7. bearcreekbat 2015-11-19 11:30

    If she is trying to make Jackley look good or save face, she has failed miserably. I don’t know if she has won any cases. I just can’t see blaming her for her client’s stupidity.

  8. 90 Schilling 2015-11-19 11:41

    End a victory with substantial damages for the tribe and force them to pay attorney fees for both sides. Similar to the the Mette fraud so the state wouldn’t have to pony up for a lawsuit it knew it couldn’t win.

  9. 96Tears 2015-11-19 11:48

    bearcreekbat, she’s also famous in Montana for going to war against Natives voting rights. Seems to be a specialty for a particular market. As Mercer had said, this case has national implications and interest. And I believe Jackley is an alumnus of the same firm.

  10. Paul Seamans 2015-11-19 11:59

    My read from facebook posts is that the plaintiffs will move forward with the lawsuit even though the defendant, Jackson County, has agreed to a settlement with the SOS. It will be a hollow victory if the plaintiffs do not proceed with the lawsuit.

  11. Roger Cornelius 2015-11-19 12:09

    Doesn’t an attorney have an obligation to their clients to say, “hey, here is how this is likely to turn out and you are going to be spending a lot of money for a losing cause”?
    And could it be that she continually encouraged the Jackson County Commission to pursue a losing case, not only to make a profit, but to keep voting rights on the front burner?

  12. Dave 2015-11-19 12:18

    The War Toilet wrote about Frankenstein back in August:

    “4. Sara Frankenstein – Sarah is the Secretary of the State GOP. She’s a partner of the Gunderson, Palmer, Nelson & Ashmore law firm. Her position with the GOP might be cause enough for inclusion on the list. But what sets her apart is her involvement in many of the hotly contested election law cases in the past year.

    Her litigation efforts haven’t just relied on old policy, she’s seemingly tread new ground with some of the most combative election law cases that have popped up in decades. Sara was the primary reason that the door was shut on Stephanie Strong’s ill-fated efforts to knock House Speaker Brian Gosch off the ballot. She also earned dismissal of Brooks V Gant, allowing for the defendants to possibly recover costs and perhaps fees from the losing parties.

    Watch for Sara to continue to be one of the top “go to” attorneys in South Dakota when people want to fight matters of election law. And with her very high profile in politics in recent years, might she be a contender for Attorney General when it opens up again?

    We shall see.” (

    A contender for attorney general? Yikes. Her last name seems fitting.

  13. bearcreekbat 2015-11-19 12:35

    Roger, you are right about the attorney’s obligation to warn clients that their case is weak. Despite that, an attorney also has the obligation to identify legal arguments that might support the client’s position. Unless the lawyer concludes that the case is frivolous (in which case it is unethical to proceed), the ultimate decision whether to litigate is made by the client.

    And it is not unusual for an attorney to develop an expertise in a complex area of the law, such as employment law, disability law, poverty law, corporate law, etc, etc. Apparently, this lawyer specializes in election law, which explains why she has been involved is many such cases.

  14. mike from iowa 2015-11-19 12:47

    She also earned dismissal of Brooks V Gant, allowing for the defendants to possibly recover costs and perhaps fees from the losing parties.

    Didn’t the defendants voluntarily give Brooks et al everything they had sued for? If that is earning a dismissal,then earning must mean capitulation.

  15. mike from iowa 2015-11-19 12:50

    I think she is a hired gun,ready to jump in and litigate and lose cases Jackley and crew would be forced to litigate and lose. That is my opinion.

  16. jerry 2015-11-19 13:10

    Good catch there mike from iowa, The monster lady is in it for the moolah, how else would she be a partner with that name? She brings in the moolah and taxpayers just suck it up and pay it. Good gigs when you have the rubes to get it started. Did she tell them they had a shitty case, doubtful, but where are the minutes to the meetings. She should be disbarred for bringing these cases up in the first place.

  17. jake 2015-11-19 13:51

    thx, mfi for thread. Anyone know whether the Montana case still awaits trial or is it done with? If so, how did it turn out? Frankenstein’s legal moves on behalf of the SD GOP are scary stuff– for taxpayers especially. Lawyer $$$$ like these are just ‘legal’ socialism utilized by those who would cry the fastest and loudest if a Democrat were receiving it.

  18. bearcreekbat 2015-11-19 14:02

    I don’t know the details,but from the cases cited it looks like Frankenstein doesn’t bring cases or litigation, rather she appears to defend government entities when they are sued. Once a lawsuit is filed against a government agency, it must defend the case.

    I can’t fault Frankenstein for accepting lucrative work, after all isn’t that what we all try to do – earn a good living?

    But it does seem a terrible waste of taxpayer dollars to hire private counsel when we have states attorneys and assistant attorney generals galore, who, if competent, should be able to comply with the statutory duty of defending the government entities when they are sued.

  19. 96Tears 2015-11-19 14:03

    Dave, getting War College’s praises isn’t what it was before PP wooed Ted Klaudt with his praises as PP’s #2 hottest Republican rising star in January 2007. Before PP erased his SDWC archives as the prelude to taking the job offer from Jabba the Gant, I saved this little gem:

    “2. Former Representative Ted Klaudt
    “You might be thinking “Didn’t Ted lose to Ryan Maher?” Well yes, that is correct. But don’t look at him for his recent loss. Look at him for what else he has going on.
    “Ted runs the South Dakota Conservative PAC, which just completed its second election cycle and is still handing out money to conservative candidates. This PAC, which originally started back in 2004, might not have been terribly active to date, but there have been rumblings that the organization might get more serious about a mission of conservative activism.
    “With conservatives feeling a bit shut out after this election, and Ted having more time on his hands, you might see this organization become more politically aggressive as the moderates did through Stan Adelstein’s MAINstream coalition.”

    And getting back to how Republicans fleece our government for cronies and family, here’s this May 27, 2007, report from KELO titled: “Klaudt’s Foster Contract: Conflict Of Interest?” You will notice the no-longer-shocking reliance on the Attorney General to look the other way:

    “The South Dakota Constitution doesn’t allow a legislator to earn money from a state program he or she decides how to fund. But former representative Ted Klaudt helped determine funding for the Department of Corrections, which essentially paid Klaudt and his wife for their work as foster parents. Since they became foster parents, the Klaudts earned nearly $160,000 for parenting those kids.”

    The KELO report breaks down the money Klaudt received each year, noting the money came from the state’s general fund which Klaudt voted on in the S.D. Legislature. The state constitution prohibits legislators from taking the money.

    In South Dakota, it’s good to be a member of the Republican protected class.

  20. mike from iowa 2015-11-19 14:18

    bcb-that brings us back to my post where she handles these cases so Jackley doesn’t have to lose more often. I prolly said it in a roundabout manner.

  21. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-11-19 16:08

    BCB, you are correct: Jackson County, as defendant, bears first blame for its discrimination against its Lakota constituents, for not establishing the voting station sooner, and for choosing to drag out this litigation.

    That said, the attorney may well bear blame for counseling her clients to keep fighting, knowing that it means more legal fees for her firm. Gunderson Palmer can persuade clients in that direction much more easily when the clients can rely on their public insurer to foot the bill.

    Rohr, the U.S. Census Bureau says that Jackson County is 51.9% Indian and 42.5% white. The Indian population is probably notably younger than the white population ( says Wanblee’s median age is 23.3, while Kadoka’s is 46.1, so voting-age white folks may outnumber voting-age Lakota. The trick to an Indian takeover of county government would be voter turnout.

  22. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-11-19 16:20

    The parties to Wandering Medicine settled, but Montana and the counties involved have been balking at fully implementing that settlement. That’s one reason the plaintiffs might want to keep pressing: the defendants may be following the lead of their counsel’s previous clients in Montana and hoping they can escape a judge’s order and then jerk the plaintiffs around post-settlement.

  23. Roger Elgersma 2015-11-19 16:30

    If an attorney develops an expertise in a particular area and then is on the wrong side of the law, that to me is a corrupt attorney. Or do they not have ethical standards. But they are working for the judges and if the judges are not on the right side then they will thrive until they run into an ethical judge. Maybe that is what happened.

  24. Dave 2015-11-19 16:30

    Can’t help but wonder if Frankenstein’s active involvement in the Republican Party is just an accident waiting to happen, too. We’ve already seen what happens when conflicts of interest are allowed to grow and fester (EB5, Mid-Central, etc.). Have we created a monster — has Frankenstein become an unofficial surrogate of the AG’s office and been given lucrative cases the AGs don’t want to dirty their hands with?? But, hey, there’s no chance of an officer of the state Republican Party running to a conflict of interest while involved in a case in which a governing body is either plaintiff or defendant. No worries.

  25. larry kurtz 2015-11-19 16:32

    The Wanblee district should be in Ogala Lakota County then Jackson should be rolled into Haakon, Jones and Lyman Counties.

  26. larry kurtz 2015-11-19 16:38

    Stanley and Sully should be rolled into Hughes. Mellette, Bennett, Todd, Gregory and Tripp should be one county.

  27. larry kurtz 2015-11-19 16:41

    Dewey, Ziebach and Corson should be a county. Butte, Harding and Perkins should be one. Lawrence and Meade should be one, Fall River and Custer should be one.

  28. larry kurtz 2015-11-19 16:42

    The entire state should offer early absentee voting.

  29. larry kurtz 2015-11-19 16:42

    East River? Who cares?

  30. larry kurtz 2015-11-19 16:48

    Fine. Stanley might be happier being in with Lyman and the others. East River is a dead zone: sorry i even brought it up.

  31. larry kurtz 2015-11-19 16:50

    you miserable bastardos.

  32. larry kurtz 2015-11-19 16:51

    everything east of the missouri river is cleveland.

  33. bearcreekbat 2015-11-19 17:11

    Roger E – yes, attorneys have an ethics code called the Rules of Professional Conduct. If an attorney is alleged to have acted contrary to the code, the complaint is considered by the state bar disciplinary committee, and if the complaint is valid the attorney faces a wide range of disciplinary sanctions.

    Cory, while it is certainly possible for an attorney to “churn” a case to increase fees, that would violate the above Rules of Professional Conduct and if caught, the attorney or firm would face sanctions, including disbarment. That would be quite a gamble – an attorney betting she won’t get caught churning for a few extra bucks verses her entire legal career going down the toilet.

  34. bearcreekbat 2015-11-19 17:24

    mfi, it looks to me like the district court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction in Wandering Medicine, and the case became moot before the 9th Circuit could decide Plaintiff’s appeal. In those circumstance the Plaintiff could not be a prevailing party for an attorney fee award unless the case was made moot by the Defendants doing what Plaintiffs wanted. Here it looks like the case became moot due the the passage of time rather than the actions of the Defendant.

  35. Paul Seamans 2015-11-19 18:15

    If a case becomes moot just because the defendant backs down at the last moment then what is the use of even bringing these lawsuits forward. I am betting that Oglala Lakota county will not drop this lawsuit and will carry it forward as far as they can. They have their own attorney’s and plenty of other attorneys willing to do pro bono work for them.

  36. bearcreekbat 2015-11-19 18:42

    Paul, as I tried to say in an earlier post, if a civil rights case becomes moot because the Defendant backs down, then the normal ruling is that the Plaintiff prevailed and is entitled to attorneys fees from the Defendants.

  37. leslie 2015-11-19 18:54

    putting financial burdens for legal fees on deserving parties has a chilling effect that results in more “justice” for the wealthy and powerful. there are NOT plenty of lawyers people can secure on a pro bono basis, and asking lawyers to work for free is a shaky premise. Insurance defense lawyers, state worker compensation staff, and many, many others use this tactic every day. “Abuse of Process” is sometimes an effective remedy.

    One good lawyer may not be enough “horsepower” in bigger cases. Perhaps this was Brendan’s dilemma against an entire republican state administration w/EB5 but he made it sound like the timing was not right for him. I would rather learn that he knew where FBI and USCIS were heading, which perhaps gave him an out that he took.

    the sophistication and complexity of good legal work is truly a marvel. we should have all learned that in Bush v. Gore. This is why we should fear the majority republican national attoneys general association. 30 states with 100 lawyers each, in those state attorneys general offices. that is horsepower.

    Licensed lawyers are the grease that keeps the political system going. They are the only ones truly in the know, as are licensed accountants in the financial world.

    In the legislature, Sveen is a good example of what an aggressive lawyer can do for a client like Joop. Yikes, huh? Reading Sara’s motion, the woman is formidable.

  38. jerry 2015-11-19 19:08

    Maybe the lawyers are a part of the Future Fund, that seems to be a good place for the money boys to have their fun while they do their bidding.

  39. jerry 2015-11-19 19:11

    Speaking of Sven, how can he have the Hutterites vote as a bloc, shouldn’t that be a voter irregularity?

  40. Paul Seamans 2015-11-19 19:37

    BCB, I’ll admit that I am a little dense on this and I probably need a little more explanation. Cory’s article appears to say that even if Jackson County backs down that the lawsuit might move forward. Shantel Krebs says that the agreement between Jackson County and the SOS may be unilaterally terminated by the SOS if the case proceeds to a decision on the merits. Isn’t this lawsuit bigger than just forcing Jackson County to provide a voting station in Wanblee?

  41. jerry 2015-11-19 21:28

    Mr. Seamans, it is starting to look like your going to have to dust off the Stetson, polish the boots and head on to Washington as you were going to do. This TPP that some here support rabidly is going to allow the Keystone XL to be done in its entirety. From Trudeau’s Canada to Cruz’s Texas all with a stroke of the pen. Dosen’t make a damn what President Obama does or does not do, the die is cast.

  42. Les 2015-11-19 22:03

    Yes, Jerry. Our liberal prez and our conservative congress did this. Splain why Obama didn’t put his John Henry on XL with the same force of his support for the TPP.

  43. Paul Seamans 2015-11-19 22:25

    jerry, don’t say that about the KXL. I’ve already been celebrating it’s death and I can’t undo my celebrations. Damn TPP.

  44. jerry 2015-11-19 22:33

    Les, I have never believed in any of these so called trade deals. They mean nothing but lost jobs here with the only thing we can manufacture is pigs and the grain to feed them for export, oh and the disposal of the stench and waste they produce. Some say that agriculture will benefit from this and I say how is that? The only way I see it is the value of the land goes up for overseas buyers and those that represent them. There is no liberal president just like there is no conservative congress, only those that grease the wheels of Washington at the beckon call of their masters. I have not seen these stockpiles of steel pipe being removed from locations in the state, so that tells me that it is still game on. There is a solution though, vote Bernie.

  45. jerry 2015-11-19 22:44

    Mr. Seamans, we must fight this TPP as hard if not harder than the black snake. Every time you hear or see someone who thinks this sellout is a good idea, remind them of NAFTA and if they are to damn dumb to remember it, show them pictures of boarded up manufacturing places where there used to be good jobs for the middle class. Let us keep the coalitions together to fight on, let us not be satisfied with the great victory that is now passed, lets move forward to killing it for good. There are enough independents and republicans that should be sick to death of what we have been seeing in our state to vote the bums out. Mix that in with Democrats and we may have something that will work. Maybe Hawks is not as great as we think, but she is one hell of a lot better than what we now have with the cowardly NOem. Whoever goes against Thune, and there better be someone, should have that same crowd’s support to kick him the hell to the curb. He ain’t a nice guy, get over it. We are stuck with the other jerk until someone finally indicts him for his role in the EB-5 and the rest of the corruption.

  46. Les 2015-11-19 22:47

    I’m guessing the millions in escrow for building the pipe still remain along the route, Jerry. I will look into that came to mind earlier today.

  47. leslie 2015-11-19 22:47

    it might be cheaper to auction the pipe off before moving it again

  48. Les 2015-11-19 22:50

    It would only go at scrap price on auction.

  49. leslie 2015-11-19 22:57

    and…? les, your 22:03 reminds me of the old les. damn.

    jerry, wtf? u got a better cite for 21:28????

  50. Paul Seamans 2015-11-19 23:09

    les and leslie,
    Maybe Cory can help advertise the Keystone XL pipe auction on this blog. TransCanada claims that the KXL has already cost them $2.4 billion. I can see the auctioneer now, “who wants to open the bid at $2.4 billion…”.

    jerry, i totally agree about the TPP. As Ross Perot would say, “that giant sucking sound…”. Only difference is the sucking sound is coming from the west rather than from the south. It is unfortunate that farm groups like Farm Bureau, Corn Growers, NCBA, and others support the TPP.

  51. leslie 2015-11-19 23:22

    and whose fault was it moving the pipe in ahead of time? les…les??

    yeah it is probably scrap now. good thing it was cheap steel in the first place i guess. thats prolly why they selected it, knowing this potential outcome. cheap, cheep, cheep. greedy energy idiots. there is no climate change. ever hear of exxon? bp? slim pickens t. boone? koch boyz. duck cheny. to shell with the arctic ocean.

    please god tell me jerry is wrong.

  52. Nick Nemec 2015-11-20 05:39

    I’d take a couple pieces of that pipe, I need to put a few culverts in.

  53. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-11-20 06:11

    Bearcreekbat, I’m pretty sure Wandering Medicine became moot because the parties settled, with the Defendants essentially capitulating, as we see in Poor Bear.

    I agree that “churning” a case would be a big gamble against the rules… but remember that we’re talking about conduct in Indian voting rights cases in South Dakota, where Attorney General Bill Janklow once advised his client (the state) to simply ignore the Voting Rights Act. You’d think rational lawyers wouldn’t do such a thing, but South Dakota is a land of infinite possibility.

  54. Paul Seamans 2015-11-20 09:22

    It would not surprise me to see the ACLU become involved in this case.

  55. 96Tears 2015-11-20 10:08

    Interesting thoughts, leslie [18:54]. The collective horsepower is daunting, and in a situation like South Dakota with its bleeding sores of scams and scandals, these attorneys become the junkyard dogs for crooks and tyrants.

    While attorneys and powerful people have always formed unholy alliances, the frequency and ordinariness in South Dakota is becoming overwhelming. Unless you can hook a swindler on a serious federal charge or in a civil action (which is uphill), the crooks can run rampant until voters can reel them back in. That makes voter suppression exercises, which Frankenstein and her firm are known for, a highly valued talent for the GOP.

    They don’t export revolution. They export suppression of democracy.

  56. 96Tears 2015-11-20 10:09

    jerry, Sveen’s exploitation of an ethnic group [19:11] to squeeze profits and election control should be exposed through the mainstream media. So far, it’s wrapped up in all the confusing details of the EB-5 racketeering scam which cloaks Sveen’s movements and actions. His intervention at the Mitchell Daily Republic last year to spike Denise Ross’ reporting when it got too hot for his client and Rounds’ direct interaction with the racketeering scam displays the lengths to which he will go to force his agenda.

  57. bearcreekbat 2015-11-20 11:13

    Cory, according to the opinion of the 9th Circuit in Wandering Medicine the case was dismissed as moot because Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction for the 2012 election but the 9th did not rule until 2013. Here is the Court’s language that leads me to that concIusion:

    “Because we conclude that the scope of the preliminary injunction only included the 2012 election, this court can no longer provide plaintiffs with the relief requested—requiring defendants to open satellite offices in time for that election. Although plaintiffs’ complaint requested “preliminary and permanent injunctive relief . . . for the 2012 primary election and . . . for all future elections,” plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction included no such language, and the evidence presented to the district court focused almost
    exclusively on the 2012 election. As that election has passed, there is no longer any relief that this court can provide with respect to that election.”

    You may be right that the case ultimately settled in Plaintiffs’ favor since the appeal only involved the motion for preliminary injunction rather than all claims on the merits. After the dismissal of the appeal as moot, the case would have been remanded to the district court for further proceeding on the merits of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint, including a trial if the case did not settle.

  58. Les 2015-11-20 13:06

    “and…? les, your 22:03 reminds me of the old les. damn.”

    It is the people not the party and Jerry and others here are coming on board.

    When we have the opportunity to dismount the failed leaders regardless of party, that should come before party loyalty, leslie.

  59. jerry 2015-11-20 14:35

    Les, you cause me concern now , as I am not sure what it is you mean “It is the people not the party and Jerry and others here are coming on board”. Are you going to turn me in to the boys that operate the Fort Pierre National Grassland?

  60. Les 2015-11-20 17:09

    Nah, Jerry. The Old Guard on the grasslands is no different than Pierre to DC. They don’t care what you or I think as long as the voters keep electing them and they can continue to screw the money out of us.

    That pipe lies on the ground in the US because everyone but Obama and Buffet wanted it there, leslie. Don’t blame me, I fought it at every turn I could.

  61. Donald Pay 2015-11-20 21:37

    Hey, It’s just a way to recycle taxpayer dollars to the Republican Party. It’s just the usual Republican corruption. It’s no different than hiring private consultants for jobs that state employees could do. With the private consultant you hand them tax dollars and they kick back a chunk to the Party. This is the same.

  62. leslie 2015-11-21 20:57

    thank you for that, les. everybody in the republican party, yes.

Comments are closed.